Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Good point, I updated my comment with an edit: Healthy SF isn’t mandated, providing health care is (and the very limited Healthy SF coverage is basically the cheapest option, so most restaurants do that).

On the “dictated by statute”, I actually mentioned that because so many people figured it was! Much like sales tax, it’s often on the bill as if it’s a thing that the city has specified and that it was a city program (rather than the city mandating that larger businesses provide coverage). Many restaurants are quite clear about it “we use this money to pay for healthcare for our workers”, but the biggest surprise for me was that the “market rate” ended up settling at about 4%. When some restaurants instead do an $X/patron or $Y/ticket add on, it catches people by surprise.

Either way, I find it amusing what people are “willing” to pay for things, especially if we can get closer to living wages for everyone. (I’m all for more “taxes” on bills that somehow people prefer over menu items going up in price).

tl;dr: good point, clarified my statements!




"and the very limited Healthy SF coverage is basically the cheapest option, so most restaurants do that"

If someone works only a few hours per week, the 'Healthy SF' coverage can cost more than the minimum employer spend. So it's not always the cheapest option.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: